Parking Eye v Somerfield Judgment

esmerobbo

esmerobbo wrote: »

This is boring now, I'm owt!

OOPs I nearly forgot! :eek:

ManxRed

mo786uk wrote: »

On the facts of this case we do not consider that any offer was made by VCS that was capable of forming the basis for a contract between it and the motorist. VCS was not in a position, by virtue of its
limited licence, to make any offer of a right to park. The ability to offer such a right was not conferred by the contract with the client, either expressly or by virtue of the nature of the interest in the car park conferred on VCS.

---

Read it carefully and you will see that the case is not the be all and end all and (quite seperatley from the right to take action for the tort of tresspass) it is possible to enter into contracts (as long as the contract with the landowner is tight enough). It seems that VCS failing in this case was not having a proper contract with the landowner.

It is a leap to say the first section which talks about tresspass and limited rights to the PPC applies to the second part about contracts. Torts and contracts are distinct.

I dont think you need the same legal rights of possesion to offer and sue on a contract as you do to sue for tressspass. The judgement implies as much.

Why has your quote of the judgement stopped where it has? The very next sentence states "That interest did not amount to a licence to occupy, or give VCS any right to possession. It merely conferred a right of entry to perform VCS's obligations under the contract."

If you include that bit then you can see that the licence they refer to is one of sufficient occupation rights of the land, not the deficiency of VCS's contract with the landowner.

Blimey, you really ARE hard work.

mo786uk

Because that paragraph contains the word OR in a pretty important place.

The PPC could be granted the right to enter into contracts with the motorists by way of its contract with the landowner OR by any interest conffered on VCS.

The VCS case had a set of facts and we know that they neighter had a sufficient contract with the landowner or any interest in the land. But if you read the sentence it clearly implies that on different facts the PPC could enter into contracts with the motorist IF they can fulfil either limb of that sentence.

NotanIdiot

The only way they can do that is if the PPC leases the land off the landowner, and I cant see that happening, because it confers too many rights to the PPC that might give the landowner problems in getting rid of the PPC if it gets nasty.

mo786uk

I should add the right to sue for tresspass and the need to have an interest in the land to do so is distinct to the ability to enter into contracts with the landowner and then the consumer and sue on them.

the case by no means states the same rules applies for suing for tresspass and suing for breach of contrrat

mo786uk

SodG24 wrote: »

Wow - talk about missing the key point !!!!!

I'll summarise it for you so it doesn't get lost in a world of text.

The VCS case, which sets precedence, proved that ONLY the landowner or a party with an interest in the land - i.e. a lease - can form a contract with the driver. No if's, but's or maybe's. That means PPCs that neither own the land nor have a lease can issue charges, "penalties" or take court action against the driver. SIMPLES.

Not that I want to flog a dead horse but it appears the Court of Appeal has overridden this now.......?

Stroma

mo786uk wrote: »

Not that I want to flog a dead horse but it appears the Court of Appeal has overridden this now.......?

Yes we know the court of appeal has overturned a certain amount of it, but not all as it applies to permit holders only, not free car parks in retail parks etc. By the way this has been dicussed already and you don't need to bump threads that are months old